Which system? Returning

[Blake.Oney]

Hey guys! I used to be on here pretty much all the time. I was a hobby photographer that was transitioning into portraiture and weddings. At the time I shot nikon crop sensor. A few different life things led me down a different path, but I’m here 9 years later wondering what I should do.

My fiancé got me an early Christmas gift. She wasn’t sure if I’d get back into photography so she didn’t go huge but she bought me a lumix g7. I picked up the 25 1.8 and took off. I feel like I understand the principals of photography more now than when I was shooting every day. It’s odd. Anyway, as I’ve kind of worked my way back into people shooting, I’m left wondering this;

if my aim is to photograph people, would it be better to transition to full frame now, buying something like an eos rp, or a d750, with an 85 1.8?
Or would it be better spent getting high end glass on my micro 4/3 system. Like the Panasonic 42.5 1.2, or the oly equivalent. Maybe even the Panasonic pro zooms in 12-35 and 35-100? There’s also the oly 75 1.8. Lots of good glass it seems. But I’m not sure if it suits my purpose. Particularly low light and iso capabilities.

So photo forum, I return, asking not what should I do, but what would you do?

Edit: I’m looking spend around 1-1200. Which is why the two full frame options are as they are. I’ve watched all the videos. Now I’m curious about other people’s experiences.

Edit 2: I’m not only looking at canon and Nikon by the way. Sony a7ii is an option, I don’t know much about Fuji. I know the rp is the newest of the cameras I’m looking at but I’m not sure it performs the best. Dual pixel does look sweet though

 

[ac12]

I shoot both Nikon DX and m4/3.
Here are a few things to think about

• DoF
  • Shallow DoF is easier with a larger format. A 85/1.8 at f/2 would give you a shallower DoF than a 45/1.8 at f/2.
  • But DoF is a double edged sword. The shallow DoF could be too shallow, with the right eye in focus but the left eye out of focus
    • Yes, you can just dial in a smaller aperture to increase the DoF.
• LOW light.
  • Larger format sensors are generally better in low light. But there are "buts."
    
  • My DX camera does better than my m4/3, and a FX D750 would be better than my DX camera.
  • If LOW light is a major factor, I would go FF with the D750.
• If you intend to go commercial, there is "perception" in marketing.
  • FF may make you look more professional to your potential clients.
    
  • But to me this is like Megapixels/MP. How much MP do you really need for a 4x6 print?
• Regarding the Canon and Nikon mirrorless, they are new, so the lens landscape is a "work in process."
  • The lens landscape will take several years to flesh in.
  • If the lens you want is available in the mirrorless mount, not an issue.
    
  • But if the lens you want is NOT yet available in mirrorless mount, how will you plug the gap?
    • You have to get a dSLR lens (Nikon F/Canon EF) and use the dSLR to mirrorless adapter (Nikon FTZ/Canon EF to R).
    • Then what will you do when that lens finally becomes available in the mirrorless mount?
• Weight and bulk
  • You are young so this consideration is probably years in your future.
  • A FF/FX kit is significantly heavier and bulkier than a m4/3 kit.
  • My m4/3 travel kit (Olympus EM1 + Panasonic-Lumix 12-60) is about 45% lighter than my similar DX kit (Nikon D7200 + 18-140).
  • I am at the age where the weight of the kit is a major factor, hence my move from DX to m4/3.
• 
  
• Price
  • You cannot get a new D750 + 85/1.8 lens for $1200, you will have to go used.
  • Probably similar for the Canon.

 

[Blake.Oney]

Yea, that’s kind of what I was leaning towards. There’s a lot of good refurbished or low shutter count used deals on d750’s and similar cameras right now.

when I first got the g7 I was really surprised at how cheap the primes were for m43. Then I started learning about the 2x crop factor and where I shot dx before I knew that would be rough for things like weddings and low light. Depth of field matters to some extent. Then I noticed that to get similar, but still not equal performance the lenses weren’t nearly as cheap as I originally thought. When I started seeing those price I just started thinking it would be worth my money more to just go into full frame.

So my original decision was the buy the eos rp with a used 85 1.8 ef lens since the rp comes with the adapter for $999. But used d750’s are like $800 and by all accounts I can find seem to be a better camera. That’s kinda where I was stuck and was curious about the m43 too because I haven’t tried those pro lenses for it and wasn’t sure what just going straight into them would be worth.

I will likely go into the D750 because it does have good auto focus even if it’s not dual pixel, and battery life is a ton better. Dual card slots are important too. Plus I shot nikon before.

Thanks! This place helped get me to where I could make money with photography in the past. Maybe I can help sometime too haha.

 

[TWX]

I personally didn't want a sensor smaller than APS-C when I bought my EOS 77D. When it came time to look for a camera for my wife, I briefly considered both the Canon Powershot G series, many with 1" sensors, and the Sony RX100 series, also using the 1" sensor. To me that sensor was a compromise, probably good enough for what her interests were. Ended up getting a good deal on an EOS M100 instead.

I'm most definitely a hobbyist, I cannot justify the price for full-frame lenses. For me APS-C is the sweet spot, I can get lots of good lenses for better prices since those lenses don't have to have full frame coverage. I can buy Canon new, Canon used, third party new or used, all for prices I can afford. If I happen to stumble upon a full-frame lens that's inexpensive I can use it too.

If I had to do it all over again I'd probably go APS-C mirrorless, an M5, M6, 50, or M6 Mark II. The EOS M native lenses are deliciously tiny and light, and since EF and EFS lenses adapt-on and then otherwise work as if they're natively, it feels like the best of both worlds. Furthermore with various speedbooster adapters that work because of the short flange distance, I may be able to make-up some of the coverage that a full-frame camera would have had if I use a full-frame lens. Sure, it might not be quite as good as on a true full-frame camera, but for my purposes it would be adequate.

 

[waday]

Shallow DOF is not possible on m43. I mean, just look at how not shallow this is..

Cutest Model

ok, I’m being a tad facetious. Problem is, I’ve seen great pictures of “people” with m43 and terrible pictures of “people” with FF.

What kinds of pictures are you taking? “Pictures of people” is very broad.

ETA: that was with the 45mm at f/1.8. I also have the 75, which is a great lens.

 

[Derrel]

There are so many factors to consider. One strategy would be to buy a used Nikon D800 for $700. If you do this then you will be able to use all sorts of f-mount lenses dating back to the 1970s this camera will focus afd and AFS lenses, and his new enough to use Nikon latest E-Series electric diaphragm lenses. Another option would be to buy a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. The idea is that you get what was formerly a $3,500 camera for around seven hundred bucks. The Canon and almost any mirrorless lens will allow you to use inexpensive Legacy 35 mm Primes and zooms with infinity Focus well using a relatively inexpensive adapter.

You could also use your current camera and spend your 1,000 to $1,200 on lenses and lighting equipment. If it were me I would spend the money on Studio Flash (battery-powered ) strobes and light modifiers and reflectors. I think your photography could be improved much more by lighting than it can by lenses

 

[Blake.Oney]

Shallow DOF is not possible on m43. I mean, just look at how not shallow this is..

Cutest Model

ok, I’m being a tad facetious. Problem is, I’ve seen great pictures of “people” with m43 and terrible pictures of “people” with FF.

What kinds of pictures are you taking? “Pictures of people” is very broad.

ETA: that was with the 45mm at f/1.8. I also have the 75, which is a great lens.

Haha that’s actually one of the nicest backgrounds I’ve seen on the 85. Usually the bokeh is a little more oval shaped in the photos I’ve seen. But yea even with the 25 I’ve learned it’s definitely workable. It’s not like the depth of field can’t be shallow and blurred, it just sometimes takes different tools and other times more effort to get it there. My main concern was with lowlight particularly with weddings. I think most of the time it would be fine, but I’ve also shot weddings where now I know I would have to have the 1.2 lenses, and that’s where my question comes in. Whether it’s better to spend that money on those super m43 lenses, or look toward full frame. I have heard the oly and panny pro primes are some of the sharpest lenses ever.


Edit:
To answer your question, mostly portraits and weddings. If I were just doing portraits this wouldn’t even be a discussion. I don’t think there’s enough of a gap to look at switching systems for that purpose. That 75 can just obliterate backgrounds if I need it to. It’s just the low light. But I’m starting to agree with Derrels sentiment that just going with an ad200 or two would be better. For weddings I could just set it up on a stand and bounce it when I need to. People do that on full frame as well. Maybe that gap isn’t as big as it seems in my mind either.

 

[Blake.Oney]

There are so many factors to consider. One strategy would be to buy a used Nikon D800 for $700. If you do this then you will be able to use all sorts of f-mount lenses dating back to the 1970s this camera will focus afd and AFS lenses, and his new enough to use Nikon latest E-Series electric diaphragm lenses. Another option would be to buy a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. The idea is that you get what was formerly a $3,500 camera for around seven hundred bucks. The Canon and almost any mirrorless lens will allow you to use inexpensive Legacy 35 mm Primes and zooms with infinity Focus well using a relatively inexpensive adapter.

You could also use your current camera and spend your 1,000 to $1,200 on lenses and lighting equipment. If it were me I would spend the money on Studio Flash (battery-powered ) strobes and light modifiers and reflectors. I think your photography could be improved much more by lighting than it can by lenses

Derrel!
you may not remember but you have taught me much on my old d3000 and d80! Haha.

I guess that brings some more into the equation. For wedding work, would the m43 system do fine with a good wireless flash? Like the ad200 maybe? Would it be worth just sticking where I’m at with something like that?

 

[Derrel]

Yes, I remember you Blake. A person can do good work with any number of cameras. I think you could do good work with your Panasonic G7 and good lenses. It is a lot of where you stand and how you frame a scene, and how you light things.

The AD200 has become quite a workhorse, and that is exactly the strobe that I was thinking of. It is powerful enough to get you into a different kind of lighting than is possible with just a Speedlight.

There is an old expression. It's not the arrow, it's the archer... meaning it's not the camera, it's the person behind it.

 

[Derrel]

I would look into Kirk Tuck and his excellent blog called The Visual Science Lab. He was a fairly well-known early adopter of the M4/ 3 Olympus cameras for professional people work. Check into what he has to say. You are right about the prime lenses from Panasonic and from Olympus--they have some really good lenses!

 

[Blake.Oney]

I would look into Kirk Tuck and his excellent blog called The Visual Science Lab. He was a fairly well-known early adopter of the M4/ 3 Olympus cameras for professional people work. Check into what he has to say. You are right about the prime lenses from Panasonic and from Olympus--they have some really good lenses!

thanks! I’ll look into that. I really do like the Panasonic system and the Olympus looks really nice too. I think that just always wanting full frame back in 2010 has invaded me lol. When I think of high iso on m43 I also realize it’s not too far from where’d you bring out a flash on a full frame as well.

So what I’ll probably look at doing if I stay with Panasonic is a couple of the ad200 and maybe the 35-100 Panasonic pro lens. Or maybe one of the flashes, and the oly 75 1.8 and 451.8. Looking into the 1.2 lenses is possible as well. I think for just portraits the two flashes and 75 would be best. Really just depends on how soon I want to take on wedding clients again.

 

[Derrel]

Agreed that when you need High ISO it might well be better to bring in supplemental lighting. Good lighting from a decent Flash will allow you to shoot at ISO 400 at a smallish f-stop so you can nail Focus easily---even if you are a few inches off, at a smaller smaller F/stop you will have a decent amount of depth of field.

 

[ac12]

Unless you are restricted from using a flash, which some churches prohibit during the ceremony, I would plan on using a flash.
I think it is better to have control over your light, than be at the mercy of unpredictable/inconsistent church lighting, or lack of lighting.

Tips for flash.

If possible, get one that will recycle fast enough to let you shoot the three shots of the garter/bouquet toss; release/toss, mid arc, catch/scramble. Or at least the release/toss and the catch/scramble. Otherwise you are limited to just ONE shot. I think that was the only place where I had a flash issue when shooting a wedding.

My nephew asked me to shoot his wedding, 2 days before the wedding. My flash and HV battery pack were 2400 miles away, so I had to use the pop-up flash ​

Get a good rotating/flip bracket, that will keep the flash ABOVE the lens, so that the shadow is minimized.​

BTW, I hope you have a 2nd body and flash for backup. It would suck to have your only body/flash conk out on you, in the middle of the wedding.

 

[Derrel]

Kirk Tuck was really high on the Olympus 45 mm f / 1.8... he made the observation that this focal length is extremely versatile and can function as both a semi-wide and a short tele, based upon your camera to subject distance. He has some really good photos inside of a diner that show what he was talking about

 

[ac12]

. . .
So what I’ll probably look at doing if I stay with Panasonic is a couple of the ad200 and maybe the 35-100 Panasonic pro lens. Or maybe one of the flashes, and the oly 75 1.8 and 451.8. Looking into the 1.2 lenses is possible as well. I think for just portraits the two flashes and 75 would be best. Really just depends on how soon I want to take on wedding clients again.

The lens FL depends on
1) What kind of portrait (multi person group, full length, 3/4, head to waist, head and shoulder, head, tight face) and
2) How much distance you have between you and the subject.

Example, if you don't have enough space, the 75 might be too long, except for a tight face shot.
​

The 25 + 35-100/2.8 combo, would give you the flexibility to do from a group family portrait down to a tight face shot.